Faction guides

[Quinn Inuit]

Hey, I've been asked to compile a list of faction guides for the ExRM, should any exist. Now, don't go writing any, since it'll be obsolete in a few months, but if you can remember any you've written and how to find them, would you mind posting them here? I know a few of you have written up how you like to start with particular factions.

[Caesar Augustus]

What sort of timescale for game start are we going for here matey? First 5 years or so?

[JaNuZ99]

Hey, I've been asked to compile a list of faction guides for the ExRM, should any exist. Now, don't go writing any, since it'll be obsolete in a few months, but if you can remember any you've written and how to find them, would you mind posting them here? I know a few of you have written up how you like to start with particular factions.

how obsolete is obsolete? by that i mean what kind of changes are you implementing that would make the standard;

Beat Pyrrhus, take ariminium,then take Arretium, then take the cities in southern italy, then build infrastructure for the next decade, meanwhile expand north towards Bononia, or just keep it as a buffer zone.. routine for Rome (i do have similar steps for other factions, but i'm curious about the changes) obsolete?

[Daqin]

While comprehensive guides could certainly be done, I think you could simplify things by just noting some basics that apply to many factions. I see it this way:

Faction type A: start with 1-4 cities, 1-2 large armies, and a decent amount of starting money but huge deficit. For these factions the initial strategy should be rapid local expansion (preferably againt rebels to avoid wars that you're not ready for), and, once you establish an area of control that generates adequate income, focus on defense while developing your cities. When you're able to produce and sustain a sizable force of quality troops, resume expansion, prioritizing low risk/high value targets that can be taken and held without overextending your fledgling empire. Factions that fall into this category are Parthia, Armenia, Sarmatia, Bactria, Britain, Dacia, Pontus, and Numidia. To a lesser degree you could include Rome, Gaul, Germania, Macedonia, and Iberia, although these factions begin a bit stronger and generally have easier paths of expansion.

Type B: existing empires, starting with numerous cities, armies, and enemies. The initial strategy for these factions should be one of defense and consolidation: focus on keeping and developing what you have before taking what you don't. Use your wealth to your advantage and field superior troops in battle, which will allow you to stunt the growth of neighboring type A factions, making them easier to conquer when you're ready to expand. When that time comes, cripple the opposition by taking their key cities first, then finish them off at your leisure. Factions of this type include Seleucia, Egypt, and Carthage. Greece sort of falls into this category, but its overextended geography and one-dimensional hoplite armies make it more difficult to defend.

That pretty much sums it up, leaving only the oddball factions that are imo the most difficult to play: Epirus, Illyria, and Galatia. These require some creativity to succeed. Epirus has good quality troops, but they're expensive, and acquiring wealth is hard when expanding means immediate wars with Rome, Macedonia, Greece, and Carthage. The Illyrians have a little more room to move, but their poor quality troops put them at a severe disadvantage in battle. And Galatia is pretty much just like playing Gaul with chariots, except that you start with a single city and are completely surrounded by enemies, including the powerful Seleucids and Egyptians. Good luck.

[Slowpoke]

In Bactria's case, however, the problem is that Indian cities (where you're most likely to expand in the beginning) are crap at generating revenue. In my game with them, Purushapura, Alexandria on the Indus and Barbarikon are all solidly in the red (along with Alexandria in Arachosia). Barbarikon is at around -1600. Only Taxila is producing a decent cashflow.

Edit: Oh, and Sarmatia is more of a type B. With a few minor tweaks they have a functional cashflow (functional meaning you can afford replacing lost troops, starting one new building per turn and still having a bit of coin to put aside) and they start with a decent number of settlements. Their problem is the vast distance between settlements (apart for the Black Sea area), making emergency troop redeployment difficult.

[Daqin]

In Bactria's case, however, the problem is that Indian cities (where you're most likely to expand in the beginning) are crap at generating revenue. In my game with them, Purushapura, Alexandria on the Indus and Barbarikon are all solidly in the red (along with Alexandria in Arachosia). Barbarikon is at around -1600. Only Taxila is producing a decent cashflow.

Edit: Oh, and Sarmatia is more of a type B. With a few minor tweaks they have a functional cashflow (functional meaning you can afford replacing lost troops, starting one new building per turn and still having a bit of coin to put aside) and they start with a decent number of settlements. Their problem is the vast distance between settlements (apart for the Black Sea area), making emergency troop redeployment difficult.

Yeah, cities on the edge of the map tend to suffer financially, I'm guessing due to low trade income (Barbarikon does better because you can build a port). You may have to be a bit more aggressive with Bactria and either push into Persia or, as the AI usually does, attack Parthia and try to get into the Caspian sea trade. The former means war with Seleucia, but that's going to happen at some point regardless, plus they don't defend their eastern borders that well. And if you build a buffer between them and India, then you can get by with minimal garrisons for the Indus valley regions, thus saving more money.

You may be right about Sarmatia, I have little experience playing with them; I like the cavalry style of warfare, but I prefer Parthia or Armenia because they have a little more variety, and they're also not hampered by the developmental limits of barbarian cultures. But Sarmatia does have a large empire in terms of land even though they only start with five or six cities, plus they have few immediate threats to worry about. Just be sure to build a hall of heroes in all of your border towns to save the hassle of transporting troops across the unpaved steppe, and get what AoR/merc infantry you can find as you move south.

[Slowpoke]

Yeah, cities on the edge of the map tend to suffer financially, I'm guessing due to low trade income (Barbarikon does better because you can build a port). You may have to be a bit more aggressive with Bactria and either push into Persia or, as the AI usually does, attack Parthia and try to get into the Caspian sea trade. The former means war with Seleucia, but that's going to happen at some point regardless, plus they don't defend their eastern borders that well.

The Seleucids attacked me around turn 17 or 18. Since then I've been desperately holding back their massive stacks (they have destroyed the Ptolemies and taken over their lands) of silver-weaponed Thoraksimenoi elephants and Chalkaspidai. I can't get the hang of using phalanx troops, though; my main army only has 3 of them (Persian levies). I tend to get more things done with my 6 units of (veteran) archers, 4 units of skirmishers and 4 units of Hippakontistai (alongside the aforementioned Phalagitai, 2 units of Sparabara and equivalent mercenaries, and my faction heir's Hetairoi). My favourite fighting style is combined arms with a strong ranged element (folowed by all-cavalry steppe style).

And if you build a buffer between them and India, then you can get by with minimal garrisons for the Indus valley regions, thus saving more money.

That's basically how i'm currently doing things. The border is at Harmozeia in the SW and Maracanda in the NW (I was forced to evacuate it due to the plague; the Seleucids took it, but it was a poisoned gift: 1/3 of their army withered away). The Parthians have not made any move, despite taking Aria after it rebelled from the Seleucids. I still keep a decent garrison in Arachosia, though.

You may be right about Sarmatia, I have little experience playing with them; I like the cavalry style of warfare, but I prefer Parthia or Armenia because they have a little more variety, and they're also not hampered by the developmental limits of barbarian cultures. But Sarmatia does have a large empire in terms of land even though they only start with five or six cities, plus they have few immediate threats to worry about. Just be sure to build a hall of heroes in all of your border towns to save the hassle of transporting troops across the unpaved steppe, and get what AoR/merc infantry you can find as you move south.

With Sarmatia (I tend to start several campaigns), I avoid getting infantry except for short-ranged pushes and/or garrison duty. All my various generals have infantry command penalties (cavalry bonuses, respectively), and it slows down my advance/retreat/feint. The only exception is Cyrtian slingers who, apart from the AP bonus shared with other sling units, also have increased range and attack (like the Balearics and the Rhodians). With a weapon upgrade and a few chevrons they fare better than my HA at killing the Heavy Cataphracts and Armoured Spearmen the Armenians field.

[Daqin]

The Seleucids attacked me around turn 17 or 18. Since then I've been desperately holding back their massive stacks (they have destroyed the Ptolemies and taken over their lands) of silver-weaponed Thoraksimenoi elephants and Chalkaspidai. I can't get the hang of using phalanx troops, though; my main army only has 3 of them (Persian levies). I tend to get more things done with my 6 units of (veteran) archers, 4 units of skirmishers and 4 units of Hippakontistai (alongside the aforementioned Phalagitai, 2 units of Sparabara and equivalent mercenaries, and my faction heir's Hetairoi). My favourite fighting style is combined arms with a strong ranged element (folowed by all-cavalry steppe style).

Well, Bactria has good phalanx units (much better than Persian AoR's), so you could fight fire with fire so to speak, but Seleucia's resources are so great that you're always going to be outnumbered. Using archers is the way to go, that's how I cope with them as Parthia. Well timed and placed cataphract charges help, too, which Bactria also has at its disposal. And Hippakontistai are my unit of choice for taking down elephants because of their mobility. But if your main problem is the sheer volume that the Seleucid's throw at you, my suggestion would be to level the odds by interrupting their production: use spies and assassins to keep their royal barracks sabotaged.

That's basically how i'm currently doing things. The border is at Harmozeia in the SW and Maracanda in the NW (I was forced to evacuate it due to the plague; the Seleucids took it, but it was a poisoned gift: 1/3 of their army withered away). The Parthians have not made any move, despite taking Aria after it rebelled from the Seleucids. I still keep a decent garrison in Arachosia, though.

The AI doesn't use Parthia well, they tend to just sit there and wait for annihilation. The only outside help you can count on is from Egypt, because they'll tie up Seleucid resources in the West. If you wait until after Seleucia wins that war, though (and they usually do), then you're pretty much on your own.

With Sarmatia (I tend to start several campaigns), I avoid getting infantry except for short-ranged pushes and/or garrison duty. All my various generals have infantry command penalties (cavalry bonuses, respectively), and it slows down my advance/retreat/feint. The only exception is Cyrtian slingers who, apart from the AP bonus shared with other sling units, also have increased range and attack (like the Balearics and the Rhodians). With a weapon upgrade and a few chevrons they fare better than my HA at killing the Heavy Cataphracts and Armoured Spearmen the Armenians field.

I'd rely on your native archers instead of bothering with Cyrtians, although the latter don't hurt as auxiliaries. As for infantry in general, they still serve a few purposes for cavalry dominant armies: absorbing enemy missiles, screening your archers and cavalry from melee attacks, and capturing city walls during sieges. In light of their disposable nature in these situations, quality infantry aren't needed, just bodies. In most situations you can even get by with Sarmatian skirmishers. I'm just pointing out a role they can fill that'll spare your more useful troops needless casualties.

[JaNuZ99]

The AI doesn't use Parthia well, they tend to just sit there and wait for annihilation. The only outside help you can count on is from Egypt, because they'll tie up Seleucid resources in the West. If you wait until after Seleucia wins that war, though (and they usually do), then you're pretty much on your own.

I'd like to see that, in most of my campaigns the Ptolemies usually end up kicking the Seleucids as far back as Antioch, plus with the other factions encroaching on their turf in the east.. the Seleucid's Empire end of getting really small, and eventually they get killed...

The Ptolemies take the remaining cities the Seleucids have afterwards.. yellow death can be quite cruel

I'd rely on your native archers instead of bothering with Cyrtians, although the latter don't hurt as auxiliaries. As for infantry in general, they still serve a few purposes for cavalry dominant armies: absorbing enemy missiles, screening your archers and cavalry from melee attacks, and capturing city walls during sieges. In light of their disposable nature in these situations, quality infantry aren't needed, just bodies. In most situations you can even get by with Sarmatian skirmishers. I'm just pointing out a role they can fill that'll spare your more useful troops needless casualties.

just about all their good for is as missile fodder and they route so easily that my missile troops (when i do decide to play as a faction other than the Romans) do a better job of fighting off any who attacks them (well not really, but they sure last longer on the battlefield)

well and maybe for taking walls, though i got skirmisher for that as well

[Metaluis90]

Yeah, cities on the edge of the map tend to suffer financially, I'm guessing due to low trade income (Barbarikon does better because you can build a port). You may have to be a bit more aggressive with Bactria and either push into Persia or, as the AI usually does, attack Parthia and try to get into the Caspian sea trade. The former means war with Seleucia, but that's going to happen at some point regardless, plus they don't defend their eastern borders that well. And if you build a buffer between them and India, then you can get by with minimal garrisons for the Indus valley regions, thus saving more money.

Maybe edge provinces should get a boost on their income which represents the trade with the regions that cannot be represented in the map

[Daqin]

Maybe edge provinces should get a boost on their income which represents the trade with the regions that cannot be represented in the map

Well, the game tries to represent that with the trade caravan/spice road/silk road "buildings" of Parthia, Seleucia, etc., but the problem is that their trade bonuses stack with standard trade, so there's still a large disparity in trade income between cities with many trading partners and edge cities that lack them. So, yeah, the ones on the Eastern edge of the map should be compensated somehow, except for Jaxartes because of its remoteness--the northernmost silk road routes passed through Sarmarkand (Maracanda). The Indus Valley cites should be particularly wealthy because they're getting trade from both India and China.

The problem I have with javelins currently is that they don't seem to add much to the game (apart of the obvious anti-elephant thing). They don't kill many people, they don't cause charging infantry to falter/stop, they don't give them shield penalties, they simply don't work in the historically-accurate way. Unfortunately, I don't think the charge-breaking or shield penalty is even implementable, thus the only way to portray javelin strength is to make them more deadly. Does it bear the risk of making them slightly overpowered? Maybe, but between a relatively 'win-more' (as they say in M:tG) weapon and a slightly OP one, I'll take the second choice. After all, Iphicrates killed 250 out of 600 Lacedemonians with javelins.

And at least some javelins were AP. The pilum, for instance. It had a triangular bodkin point. Vegetius also mentions AP. Anti-unarmoured-enemy javelins tended to have either a broad/flat or a hooked point (contrast pilum with angon).

I wonder if there's a way to make it so that they reduce the armor of enemy troops after they've been hit, so as to represent discarded or damaged shields and the like. That way, even if the javelins themselves don't kill many people, they'll at least leave units more vulnerable to other attacks. That might be beyond the scope of the game, but if it could be done, it might be a solution. What exactly does Vegetius say, btw?

[GraaEminense]

I seriously doubt it's possible to implement any kind of long-term effect of missiles outside morale.
On the plus side, javelins will get a serious boost towards historically accurate effect with the promised morale drop across the board in 4.0, as the missile effect on morale will help break units faster. That should be enough, in my opinion.

I am reasonably sure the Roman pila were designed more to be shield-busting than armour-piercing, though the effect is pretty similar. Javelins do kill a lot already, just not from the front. Which is why you should aim to outflank your enemy and conserve your ammunition until you have -or they turn their back or right side towards you.

[Slowpoke]

What exactly does Vegetius say, btw?

"As to the missile weapons of the infantry, they were javelins headed with a triangular sharp iron, eleven inches or a foot long, and were called piles. When once fixed in the shield it was impossible to draw them out, and when thrown with force and skill, they penetrated the cuirass without difficulty."

http://www.pvv.ntnu.no/~madsb/home/w.../dere03.php#18

[Daqin]

One more thing about finances: all factions begin with at least one or two of its most elite and expensive units. I highly suggest that said units be either used up or disbanded on the first or second turn. Unless you're playing one of the ultra hard factions, you won't need the elites at the start, and keeping them is major financial drain that even the wealthy empires can ill afford, much less those who start with one or two cities. By the time you need elite units, you should be able to recruit fresh ones.

[Carados]

I had a 2-turn "guide" for the Galatians somewhere that gives you 4 cities without going into the red at all. Highlights Daqin's point about elites quite nicely.

Daqin has the right idea. We should identify what the general trends are, explain them, and later give a brief account of what each faction is and their immediate targets.

It's also important to note how useful low-cost, high build-time buildings are in the early game. Especially farms. If you do it right, it effectively removes money lost through construction for a long time and hence all your resources can be poured into the military.

[Quinn Inuit]

I like the idea of identifying the general situation in which each faction finds itself at the start of the game, along with some advice about how to spend the first few turns.

I wish I could find Carados's Galatian guide, though. It was quite comprehensive, and there's no reason not to make it available if we have it.

[Carados]

I looked myself and I can't find it =\

And believe me, I looked.

[Quinn Inuit]

Me too.

Hey, did I (or anyone else) give you rep for it? It might be in your list of rep'd posts.

[Carados]

I was looking for Galatia and Galatians. Yesterday I thought of something better - I remembered that I used the names of the generals. So this time I searched for Brennus.

Voila!!

I've just had a quite go as them on medium difficulty and hard campaign (my usual settings). What I did was this:

~Turn 1~
Glasobrin > attacks Pessinus
Sennias > attacks Nicomedia
Brennus > attacks Prusa

One spear warband stays behind to garrison Ancrya set on very high tax, I start building the high kings hall and recruit one skirmisher warband.

~Turn 2~
Ancrya riots. Settlement brought under control.
Adopted a general who joined with Brennus.
Brennus attacks Prusa. Chosen spearmen lead the assault and take on the phalangites head on whilst Brennus and any other cavalry attack flanks. Combined they will destroy the phalangites. The peltests get attack by everything (again, chosen spearman attacking first).
Occupy settlement.

Adopted general and army move adjacent to Nicomedia.
Sennias attacks Nicomedia. All slingers run into position (even reinforcements) to provide support to battering rams. Chosen spearmen unit goes in through gate alone set on defence mode. When enemy units surround chosen spearmen, galatian swordmen charge into enemy. Rest is simple mop up operation.
Occupy settlement.

Sennias and army move to support Brennus. Adopted general and army garrison Nicomedia.
Glasobrin attacks Pessinus. Chariots and heavy cavalry are used to early on during fight on plaza. Everything used to take city.
Occupy settlement.

At the end of all that, I disbanded any surviving chosen spearmen and chariots.
My cities had incomes of 1250, 390, 686 and -591. My tresuary JUST stayed in the green at about 28.
If you can replicate what I did though, you are sorted and should be able to fend of Antiochus and his elephants (maybe? ).


The trick is to make effective use of your chosen spearmen, they are your strongest units and it is a mistake to disband them straight away, because you will then have to recruit galatian swordsmen which in actuality cost you more over those few turns!

An example. Disbanding two units of chosen spearmen = +£1600 per turn. Recruit one galatian swords for ~ £1150 + £450 upkeep. Next turn, £1150 expended. Upkeep increases to £900. So your £3200 saved actually nullified by am expenditure of £1150 + £1150 + £900 + 450 = £3650!!
And you get lesser troops for your troubles!!

Build mines at every opportunity you get. The extra £500 you get from them each turn is a major boost early on.

[Caesar Augustus]

Nice! Have some retro-active rep